TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 1450X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed by the Appellant/Revenue completely fails to explain the immense delay of over 4 years and a 100 days. The record before this Court shows that even after the filing of the Appeal, the Appellant/Revenue has taken adjournments on almost each date of hearing over the last two years. In any event, the Apex Court in Bherulal case [ 2020 (10) TMI 1231 - SUPREME COURT] while relying upon an earlier decision in Postmaster General And Others. Vs. Living Media India Limited and Another [ 2012 (4) TMI 341 - SUPREME COURT] has categorically held that the law of limitation binds everybody including the Government and there is no separate statute of limitation provided for governmental appeals. As such, we find that the Appellant/Revenue has not b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he delay in filing of the Appeal. Although the Additional Affidavit references all connected Appeals, it is only on the record of ITA 232 of 2020. A Reply Affidavit to the Additional Affidavit was also filed by the Respondent/Assessee on 17.10.2022 in ITA 232 of 2020. 4. There is a typographical error in paragraph 6 of the order dated 10.03.2023, as it indicates that the request of the adjournment is from the Respondent/Revenue instead of Appellant/Revenue . The order dated 10.03.2023 should be read to reflect this change. The rest of the order remains unchanged. 5. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Appellant/Revenue, Mr Sunil Kumar Agarwal, had, on 10.03.2023, requested for an adjournment/accommodation on behalf of the Additional Sol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a government department, the delay cannot mechanically be condoned. 8. Mr G.C. Srivastava, on the other hand, draws the attention of the Court to the Additional Affidavit to submit that the contradictory decisions of other Benches have led to the delay in filing of the present Appeal. In this regard, it is inter-alia submitted that due to certain developments, a need arose for reconsideration of an earlier administrative decision of the Appellant/Revenue of not filing an Appeal. 9. The record shows that the present Appeal has been filed after delay of 4 years and 100 days as per the Appellant/Revenue [i.e.,1560 days] and 1589 days as per the Registry of this Court. The Application which was filed accompanying the Appeal; C.M. APPL. No. 3473 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /revenue has preferred the instant appeals, for the reason that the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal had decided this very issue in its favour. 4.1. We are told that the aforementioned bench has held that the aforementioned payment would constitute royalty. 4.2. It is not in dispute that the Bangalore Bench rendered its decision on 30.12.2014, which is, as is obvious, prior to the date when the impugned order was passed by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal. 4.3. Furthermore, in any case, in the impugned order, there is a reference to the decision of the Bangalore Bench, which the Delhi Bench has chosen not to follow because of the decision of the jurisdictional High Court i.e., this court. [Emphasis is ours] 10. Section 260A of the Income Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upon on the Judgments of Supreme Court in Collector (LA) v. Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC 107 and State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani (1996) 3 SCC 132 . A review of these decisions shows that in the Katiji case (supra), the delay by the Government department was only 4 days, whereas, there was a delay of about 109 days in the Chandra Mani Case (supra). As referred to above, the delay in the present case is a huge 1589 days. Therefore, these decisions cannot come to the assistance of the Appellant/Revenue. 14. In any event, the Apex Court in Bherulal case (supra) while relying upon an earlier decision in Postmaster General And Others. Vs. Living Media India Limited and Another (2012) 3 SCC 563 has categorically held that the law of limitation binds ever ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us.... x x x ..... 30. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. [Emphasis is ours] 15. As such, we find that the Appellant/Revenue has not been able to give any adequate or sufficient reasons, to explain the delay. We are therefore unable to condone the huge delay of more than 4 years and 100 da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
